tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post9048703157481942713..comments2023-05-26T10:55:27.696-04:00Comments on Jc_Freak: WHY ONE SHOULD BELIEVE IN GODPart III: TranscendanceJc_Freak:http://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-41696711451090806452013-03-06T01:34:35.779-05:002013-03-06T01:34:35.779-05:00Actually that isn't my argument. Your quibble ...Actually that isn't my argument. Your quibble seems to be with materialism. This argument disproves materialism. If you don't believe in materialism than the argument isn't pointed towards you. <br /><br />However, it is also possible that I am merely using an over-simplified defintion of materialism, which is what I suspect. I have not bothered to go through all of the various forms of quantum particles. I would suspect that most atheist philosophers would include all such particles as material whether or not they are considered matter or energy. If so, than the transcendetals that I have named would still not exist as material. <br /><br />In other words, I think you are merely being pedantic here. Can you account for the existance of the things named within the context of material? Yes or no.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-30032709767363091322013-03-05T12:04:12.746-05:002013-03-05T12:04:12.746-05:00Okay, point noted on creationism vs. theism. I'...Okay, point noted on creationism vs. theism. I've never actually seen a non-creationist use these arguments, but it's true though that these arguments exist outside of creationism. <br /><br />Your argument was that all things real are either mass or energy; a graviton is neither mass nor energy. Then there are the fermions, which are the *building blocks of matter*, but are not actually matter. They exist independently of matter, just as hydrogen and oxygen exist independently of water.<br /><br />Again, the transcendental argument is not a logical proof in any sense.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15777125601032567223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-47697492609012359562013-03-05T02:24:30.938-05:002013-03-05T02:24:30.938-05:00The Transcendental Argument isn't a "Crea...The Transcendental Argument isn't a "Creationist Argument". Creationism has to do with evolution. This strictly has to do with atheism.<br /><br />Second, in reference to gravity, gravity is a force related to matter. It is still part of the classification and falls under materialism. I recognize that it doesn't reduce strictly to matter or energy, but this is a rather informal presentation of the argument. The transcendentals on the other hand cannot be accounted for within materialism.<br /><br />Besides, you naming other things is hardly a disproof of the argument. Rather in most circumstances it would bolster it. The question is, how are such things accounted for within the context of materialist philosophy?Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-53344185726761137792013-03-03T22:55:35.423-05:002013-03-03T22:55:35.423-05:00Actually, this is false. Gravity itself is not ma...Actually, this is false. Gravity itself is not matter or energy; yet we do know gravity travels at the speed of light. The transcendental argument is not a proof, in any sense; it, like all other creationist arguments, is based on a huge assumption and an unsupported conclusion. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15777125601032567223noreply@blogger.com